Campbell et al v. Facebook Inc.

Filing 161

EXHIBITS re 149 Opposition/Response to Motion,,,,, filed byFacebook Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Himel Decl. - Exhibit MM (Redacted), # 2 Himel Decl. - Exhibit NN (Redacted), # 3 Himel Decl. - Exhibit OO (Redacted), # 4 Fechete Decl. - Exhibit PP (filed under seal), # 5 Fechete Decl. - Exhibit QQ (filed under seal), # 6 Fechete Decl. - Exhibit RR (filed under seal), # 7 Fechete Decl. - Exhibit SS (filed under seal), # 8 Fechete Decl. - Exhibit TT (filed under seal), # 9 Fechete Decl. - Exhibit UU (filed under seal), # 10 Fechete Decl. - Exhibit VV (filed under seal), # 11 Fechete Decl. - Exhibit WW (filed under seal), # 12 Fechete Decl. - Exhibit XX (filed under seal), # 13 Fechete Decl. - Exhibit YY (filed under seal), # 14 Fechete Decl. - Exhibit ZZ (filed under seal), # 15 Fechete Decl. - Exhibit AAA (filed under seal), # 16 Declaration Declaration of Michael Adkins In Support of Defendant Facebook, Inc.s Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification (Redacted))(Related document(s) 149 ) (Chorba, Christopher) (Filed on 1/16/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
JOSHUA A. JESSEN, SBN 222831
[e-mail]
JEANA BISNAR MAUTE, SBN 290573
[e-mail]
PRIYANKA RAJAGOPALAN, SBN 278504
[e-mail]
ASHLEY ROGERS, SBN 286252
[e-mail]
1881 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
CHRISTOPHER CHORBA, SBN 216692
[e-mail]
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
FACEBOOK, INC.

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

OAKLAND DIVISON

17
18
19
20
21
22

MATTHEW CAMPBELL and MICHAEL
HURLEY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FACEBOOK, INC.,
Defendant.

Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)
PUTATIVE CLASS ACTION
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL ADKINS
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
FACEBOOK, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION

23
24

REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT(S) SOUGHT TO BE SEALED

25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL ADKINS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1
2

I, Michael Adkins, declare as follows:
1.

I have been employed as a software engineer at Facebook since May 2010, and my

3

current title is Engineering Manager. I am over the age of 18. I have worked on the Facebook

4

Messages product to build anti-abuse, security, and anti-phishing systems for the Facebook Messages

5

product. My responsibilities generally involve ensuring the integrity of messages passing through

6

Facebook’s system to ensure that they are not malicious, fraudulent, or spam. My work thus

7

encompasses

8

systems). Unless otherwise stated, the following facts are within my personal knowledge and, if

9

called and sworn as a witness, I could and would testify competently to these facts.

10

2.

one of Facebook’s suite of anti-abuse systems (also referred to as “Security”

I provide this Declaration to explain certain facts regarding Facebook’s software code

11

as it relates to Facebook’s

12

uniform resource locators (“URLs”) in messages sent and received through the Facebook platform, in

13

support of Facebook’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.

14

3.

and other Security-related systems, particularly as they relate to

As explained in further detail below, Facebook source code is configured to run

15
16
17

Accordingly, there are many

18

instances when a URL or URL attachment generated in connection with a message will not lead to

19

the creation of a

20

Sentry, no

21

made in this case,

22

security and anti-abuse functions.

23

Overview of Sentry

24

. Specifically, in those instances when a URL attachment is blocked by
will be created. Further, contrary to assertions I understand Plaintiffs have
generated from URL attachments to messages for its

4.

to determine whether a

25

message or post, or information included with it – such as a URL – is malicious, fraudulent, or

26

otherwise harmful. For example, if a person using Facebook posts or sends a message with the URL

27

http://clickmonkeys.com,

28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

would analyze the URL to determine
1

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL ADKINS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

whether it is a harmful link containing spam, malware, a virus, or the like, and whether it is likely that

2

the sender’s account has been hijacked (given that it sent a malicious or spammy URL or URLs).

3

can likewise run things like

4
5
6

5.

One general purpose of Facebook’s Security systems (including

, among others)

7

is to protect people and their data when they use Facebook. For instance, Facebook encrypts user

8

activity (whether that involves posting a status update or sending a message) so that third parties

9

cannot access it in transit, and if an individual clicks on a spam post accidentally, Facebook’s

10

detection tools determine whether a virus has infected the individual’s browser or computer and helps

11

to remove it.

12

hackers, and other such individuals or entities, so that all people legitimately using Facebook can

13

enjoy the site safely and confidently.

14

6.

among other Security tools, was built to ward off attacks from cyber criminals,

Sentry runs a series of various filters and other mechanisms by which to detect abuse

15

or other fraudulent activity on Facebook; these include functions called

16

“Sigma.”

17

in the text of the message

and
the URL typed

18
19
20
21
22

. Sigma, in turn, is a rules engine that runs a series of policies

23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

2
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL ADKINS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1
2

Sentry and URLs in Messages
7.

As noted above in paragraph 3, Facebook code is configured such that

8.

First, during the period covered by discovery in this case (2010-2013),

3
4
5
6
7

, Facebook would assess

8

This functionality can be seen

9

which specifically states that

10
11

9.

12

Specifically, if the sender typed a URL into the message and
, which would in turn,

13
14

(which is contained in a
system called

15

), it would tell
. Accordingly, no URL preview would be generated. So instead,

16

. This was true whether the person using

17

Facebook was attempting to share the URL through a message or through a public post to their

18

profile, a status message on their NewsFeed, a post to a friend’s profile, or the like;

19
20

to generate a URL
preview.

21
22
23
24

10.

Second, if a URL preview was successfully generated (and not deleted by the sender),

the URL attachment would have been sent with the message when the sender pressed “Send.”

25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

3
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL ADKINS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

to determine and help resolve any abuse- or security-related issues.

2
3

detect largescale automated abuse (e.g., spam, malware, phishing, and other abuse). For example, Sigma

4
5
6

. Likewise, the

7
8

. Further,
could be run through Facebook’s

9
10

11.

11

, and that the sender was

12

allowed to send messages to that recipient (i.e. the recipient had not blocked that sender). This would

13

also include

14

qualify for delivery to the Inbox or

15

whether it should be directed to the” Other” folder, based on the sender-recipient(s) relationship and

16

the recipient’s configured settings. The

17
18

. If

19

such an error occurred, the

20

URL attachment to a message,

21

12.

. If such an error occurred with respect to a
.

Further, the

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

. Accordingly,

may use
4

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL ADKINS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1
2
3

. Based on the

4
5
6

the sender might have seen the
following security prompt:

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

13.

, including

14
15

to perform their anti-abuse- and security-related
functions. For instance,

16
17

– was available to

18

and used by Sigma,

19

14.

.

Third, when a sender or a recipient tried to view the sent message,

20
21
22

It would once again run a

23

discussed in paragraphs 10-13 and if any of these threw an error, the message, part of the

24

message, or its URL attachment may not have been rendered to the recipient. Of course, this set of

25

checks would not occur if

26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

5
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL ADKINS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1
2

detect that a URL attachment to the message was potentially dangerous when the recipient (or sender)

3

tried to view it in their inbox, it could have shown the following security protocol to the recipient (or

4

sender) when they tried to view the message and its attachment:

5
6
7
8
9

15.

Note that, if in this process,

10
11
12
13

it could not render its URL
attachment to the recipient (or sender) trying to view that message.

14
15
16
17
18

Variability Among Class Members and Over Time in Connection with Sentry
16.

There was considerable variability in a given instance with respect to whether

19

on a message and any URL attachment

20

associated with it.

21

17.

For efficiency reasons, the Sigma

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

6
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL ADKINS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

. Thus,

2

presented by each message. It is impossible to know precisely what

3

variability of the input and other data

4
5

18.

at a given time.

Further, each individual

, Sigma,

among others) could determine whether

6
7

will do given the

For instance, if a sender
attempted to upload a malicious file,

8
9

19.

Further, Facebook’s

20.

Similarly, as described earlier above, if a sender sent a message to a recipient

10
11
12
13

recognized as their Facebook friend, but the message contained a URL known to be a spammy link,

14
15
16
17

21.

Alternatively,

but was later determined by

18
19

so that it would not have rendered the URL preview

20

attachment to the sender or recipient if they later reopened that message in their Inbox or Sent

21

Messages folder.

22

22.

23
24

Taking all of this variation together, at a minimum, determining whether a putative

class member’s share of a URL in a message actually resulted in
, among other things, on whether the

25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

Such a determination
would require the following individualized inquiries for each message:
7
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL ADKINS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

a. Was the message sent from the Facebook website, or was it sent using the Share

2

Plugin on a third party website?

3

b. Did the sender either copy and paste a URL into the draft message text field, or type a

4

URL into the draft text and press the space bar?

5

c. Was the URL to a third-party webpage (as opposed to a Facebook webpage)?

6

d. Was the sender using a browser that is JavaScript capable?

7

e. Did the sender have JavaScript enabled in her browser?

8

f. Did any of the

9
10
11

g. When the message was sent,

12
13

or Sigma

14
15

, among other things?

16

h. After the message had been sent, and the sender or recipient attempted to view it, was

17

the URL attachment, or part of the message, or the whole message,

18
19
20
21
22

?
23.

To my knowledge, neither Facebook nor any other entity possesses the data that would

23

be required to ascertain the answers to the inquiries in paragraph 22(a)-(g), either on an individual or

24

bulk basis, for putative class members.

25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

8
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL ADKINS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the

2

foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on January 14, 2016, in Menlo

3

Park, California.

4
/s/ Michael Adkins
Michael Adkins

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

9
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL ADKINS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)

1
2
3
4
5
6

ATTORNEY ATTESTATION
I, Christopher Chorba, attest that concurrence in the filing of this Declaration of Michael
Adkins has been obtained from the signatory. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 15th day of January,
2016, in Los Angeles, California.
Dated: January 15, 2016

/s/ Christopher Chorba
Christopher Chorba

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP

10
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL ADKINS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
Case No. C 13-05996 PJH (MEJ)